Thank you for answering. I think it's perfectly reasonable at the current income level, since if that's a typical month's income it would mean that you're still only taking in about $50k/year, which is difficult to do much with.
However, if you're intending to keep that split as revenue increases, I think it conflicts with the way you're framing the company in places like the linked post and the Code Sponsor homepage. Stating a mission like "fighting for open source sustainability" and remarks like "Why do we do it? Basically, we want to help" don't mesh with the fact that your company alone keeps more of the money than you pass on to all of the projects combined.
I recognize that Code Sponsor isn't a charity/nonprofit, but it feels like you're trying to give the impression that it's a similar sort of values/mission-based organization. So it's not a fair comparison, but as a point of reference, Charity Navigator would give a financial score of zero to an organization that only used 40% of their funds for their "purpose", and they'd be solidly in the bottom 10% (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...).
Overall, your take doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary for advertising. The World Advertising Federation says that 60% of advertising cost is taken by various companies that an ad passes through before it's actually displayed (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AkjTy8a6FJ8/WGqb2nGR0pI/AAAAAAAAF...), but those companies certainly don't try to describe themselves as philanthropic ones.
I hope I don't come off as too negative. I think it's great that you're working on improving the current situation of open-source sustainability, which really is a major issue. But I hope that if your income reaches the point where Code Sponsor is sustainable (which certainly includes paying yourself), you consider adjusting the split so that more funds are given to the projects you want to help, instead of just keeping it as profit.
